On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 22:27:53 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 19:10:36 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:00:58 -0500, flipper wrote:



I suppose that means we can look forward to GSE Big Macs after they
'regulate' away, to 'save' our fat ass, the fast food market.


The requirement to list trans fat content has worked very well. Most
packaged stuff no longer has trans fats. Since it's likely a killer,
they could have made it illegal.

I wish the government would require disclosure of MSG.

The issue wasn't 'disclosure labels' or else we could solve your
presumed gambling problem

I don't have a gambling problem. Casino type gambling is boring. I
only gamble when I control the game and the odds are in my favor.

by having them include "Warning, the Federal
Government has determined that loosing all your money could be
hazardous to your economic health," as if even the worst 'gambling
addict' didn't already know that.

Nor was I talking about 'labels', what with a bevy of groups demanding
dictates, or 'taxes', on what foods can, and cannot, be sold.

It's reasonable to prohibit the sale of poisons, carcinogens,
biohazards, and other things that are really bad. This is simply
keeping one class of people from harming another, like laws against
drunk driving and fraud. Mandatory warnings can be effective, too.

You are free to ignore the warnings, or make your own dangerous foods
for your private consumption.

Governments have radically changed their attitude about public risk in
the last 40 years or so. Remember when cars had metal dashes, no seat
belts, no side lights, and gas tanks that would incinerate you after a
rear-end collision? Remember when cans of fruit were sealed with lead
solder? Ungrounded metal-case drills and hot-chassis radios? Kids
furniture that would strangle or burn them to death?

The big scandal now is diesel particulates and maybe high-fructose
corn syrup.

John